MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, January 22, 2007

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

 

PRESENT:            Mike Cassavoy, Chair, Richard Connolly, Ed Cassidy, John Sadowski, Gerry Marcus, Anne DeSouza-Ward, Bob Mercado, Tom Pawlina and Carla Francazio

 

Denise Gaffey, Director & City Planner, Matt Hennigan, Assistant Planner, and Janet Graf, Secretary, were present.

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. by the Chair, Mr. Cassavoy. 

 

 

MINUTES

a) Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, October 23, 2006

b) Regular Meeting and Public Hearing, November 20, 2006

c) Regular Meeting, December 11, 2006

 

Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to accept all three sets of minutes.  Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the motion.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.  Mr. Cassavoy noted that he could not vote on the December 11, 2006 minutes as  he was not present. 

 

 

SLOPE PROTECTION SPECIAL PERMIT

Case SP06-003, Dana Street, Amero

The Applicant, Stephen Amero and his attorney, Patrick McAvoy, were present.  Drawings showing the layout of the house on the lot and a building elevation were presented to the Board.  Mr. Cassavoy said that the plans still lack some key specifics that the Planning Board would like to see.  Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Planning Board would like to see a drawing showing the sloped areas that fall within the Slope Protection Ordinance.  Mr. McAvoy said the Applicant could provide that for the Planning Board members.  He turned the presentation over to Mr. DiLullo, the architect, who stated that the new drawings show one way the Applicant sought to comply with the Ordinance.  He said when the road is graded up to the site, it raises the existing grade of the site approximately 10 feet or so along the front and diminishes in the back.  Sixty percent of the site is re-graded.  The house has no basement – when you come up the driveway, you come into the garage under the house.  Mr. DiLullo stated that they have kept site disturbance to a minimum in the back of the house and maintained outcroppings on both sides.  Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Applicant needs to address the purpose of the Ordinance, items a through d.  The Planning Board needs to be satisfied that these four items have been met.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward had a question about placement of the house on the ledge and how much of the area is impacted.  Mr. DiLullo stated that the house will be placed on fill which will cover over the ledge at the front of the site.  Mr. Cassavoy told the Applicant if he is not prepared at this time, he has time to respond in writing to the four conditions.  The Planning Board is going to continue the public hearing again.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward questioned whether the lot met the required minimum lot area once the sloped areas are factored in.  Mr. Cassavoy stated that is why he is looking for a plan which addresses this.  Mr. Sadowski commented on how initially the focus was on the roadway.  He spoke about whether emergency vehicles would have enough room to turn around.  He also made an observation that the retaining wall in the lower right corner still exists and wondered if this would cause run-off to be diverted to another property.  Mr. McAvoy then had an interpretational question that he needed clarification on.  Ms. Gaffey clarified that the Ordinance allows the Applicant to apply for a Special Permit to count the sloped area.  This is why the Board needs to see these calculations.  Mr. Cassavoy requested that the new plans be superimposed over the old ones to compare them.  Mr. Cassidy agreed with Mr. Sadowski’s concerns about the road and questioned the wisdom of building the road in front of the entire lot.  Mr. Sadowski asked if it would be a private road and Ms. Gaffey replied affirmatively.  Ms. Gaffey went on to say that the Department of Public Works (DPW) now views Dana Street more like a driveway and will require adjustments to the roadway to minimize the impact.  Mr. Cassidy spoke about the Applicant’s previous experience with the DPW.  While the Planning Board wants to respond to that, the members don’t want to create a precedent for every new sad story.  The Planning Board regrets the way the Applicant went through the process.  The hearing was now open to the public.  Mr. Cassavoy asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments. 

 

Kevin Anderson, Conservation Commission.  Mr. Anderson asked the Applicant to respond to the Conservation Commission’s August 2006 letter.  Mr. McAvoy will respond in writing and will send a copy of the letter to the Planning  Board. 

 

Robert Cunningham, 176 Forest Street.  Mr. Cunningham asked the Board if there would be any response to the public’s comments from previous hearings on this application.  Mr. Cassavoy stated the public had a variety of questions at earlier meetings.  He said that the minutes could be emailed to Mr. McAvoy to make certain those concerns are ‘not missed.’  The members discussed continuing the public hearing.  Mr. Pawlina requested that the Slope Protection Ordinance be addressed.  Mr. DiLullo acceded to this request.  The construction plans should show slopes exceeding 25%, the plans should be coordinated and show limit of construction and be cross-hatched.  These should be provided to the Planning Office so that the public can view before the February 26th hearing.  In regard to the Architect’s design, Mr. Cassidy added that it looks like the house is designed for a flat site.  He is in favor of incorporating the slope into the design to minimize blasting and filling.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing until February 26, 2007.   Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.     

 

Case SP06-004, Swains Pond Avenue, Rivers

The public hearing is closed.  The Applicant, Bruce Rivers, and his engineer, Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance, were present.  The Planning Board needs to make a motion for approval or disapproval.  One of the issues for discussion is drainage.  Who will maintain the detention basin and swale?  Mr. Salvo stated it would be the homeowner’s responsibility.  Mr. Connolly asked if the City had a recommendation.  The City Engineer wanted to see certain treatment for the drainage.  The swale will be maintained and stabilized with mesh.  On the bottom portion will be rip-rap for outlet protection.  It will be the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain it –this will be written right into the condominium documents.  The Conservation Commission had preferred no rip-rap.  Mr. Salvo said the compromise on the rip-rap is just placing it at the bottom.  The second item for discussion is the conservation land.  Two acres will be deeded in perpetuity to the City of Melrose.  Mr. Cassavoy stated that the Board of Aldermen has to vote on this issue.  Ms. Gaffey stated that this is in the ZBA decision and is shown on the plans.  Discussion then centered on blasting vs. chipping.  Mr. Sadowski stated that blasting sounds scarier sometimes than it is.  There actually can be much less impact on the neighbors than with chipping.  Blasting can go much faster also.  It has to be done properly though with much smaller blasts.  The area needs to be matted and covered.  Ho-ramming can be inefficient and noisy with constant vibrations eight hours a day.  Mr. Pawlina stated that the Board should not be stating means and methods as this is all subject to the owner and the contractor under the purview of the Fire Department.  The Planning Board’s opinion can be stated but must yield to the developer.  Mr. Cassavoy then read the Slope Protection Ordinance to see if these conditions have been met in this project. 

 

  1. preserve and enhance the landscape by encouraging the maximum retention of natural topographic features, such as drainage swales, streams, slopes, ridge lines, rock outcroppings, vistas, natural plant formations and trees;
  2. to minimize the effects of grading to ensure that the natural character of steep slopes is retained;
  3. to minimize water runoff and soil-erosion problems incurred in grading of steep slopes; and
  4. to encourage innovative architectural, landscaping, circulation and site design.

 

Mr. Sadowski spoke about a) and b) together and stated that this process has come a long way and ‘it is as good as it gets’ for this project.  In regards to c) Mr. Sadowski felt the disturbance is a small part on this large lot.  For condition d) Mr. Sadowski felt that the design was improved by 85% versus the original proposal.  Ms. Gaffey said that this is the first Slope Protection application to come before the Board.  She pointed out that the Board also must find that the proposal meets the general criteria for a Special Permit in Section 235-63 of the Ordinance.  The members felt comfortable that these conditions were fulfilled.  The members then spoke about how the Applicant had made a reasonable assumption prior to acquiring this property based on the ZBA’s previous approval.  The Applicant had received approval, then the Slope Protection Ordinance went into effect.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to grant this Slope Protection Special Permit.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  A roll call was taken:  eight in favor of the Permit being granted.  Ms. Francazio abstained due to absence at a previous session of the public hearing.    

 

OTHER

Zoning for Home Occupations

Mr. Pawlina recused himself.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward told the Board that the Zoning Subcommittee met to discuss this issue in depth.  Ms. Gaffey and Mr. Hennigan looked at the regulation and made changes which were reviewed by the Subcommittee.  While the Subcommittee felt it had a productive discussion, it wants to meet again.  Some of the by right conditions discussed included:  no non-resident employees, no signs and no more than 40% gross area of the house can be used for the home occupation.  There are many types of people working from home:  engineers, artists, etc.  The Board doesn’t want to see these applicants “clogging the Board of Appeals.”  Ms. DeSouza-Ward said they are of differing minds regarding delivery trucks and are trying to find a middle ground.  Some want to leave this issue to the Building Inspector’s discretion.  Outstanding issues to discuss at the next Zoning Subcommittee meeting include number of permitted visits and how to handle deliveries.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that the Subcommittee doesn’t want to set anything in stone in terms of a list of permitted or prohibited occupations.  Ms. Gaffey added that such a list does not envision future occupations.

 

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to adjourn.  Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION.  All voted in favor.  None opposed.  Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.